How is it that a person can graduate from college and agree that evolution can explain the most minute differences between various fish, animals and trees yet believe that humans did not evolve past skin color?

You are trying to apply two different areas of science to one application. Physical differences that indicate and establish different species also affect behavior. Take two ants. One red ant and one black ant. Put them in a small container. They will fight to the death. Is it ant racism? No, it is the struggle between the species for survival.

Now take a White person, a Jew, and an Ubangi. The Jew will convince the Ubangi that the White person owes them for some injustice whether it is true or not. The Ubangi, being naturally lazy and shiftless due to their abbreviated and abandoned (by nature) evolution in Africa, will jump on this and demand that whitey supports them. The White person will have to pay more in taxes and the Jew will manage a profit from both because the White and the Ubangi are pitted against one another.

Same struggle as the red ant and the black ant. More complex because we are complex creatures with complex societies. But it is basically the same struggle for survival. Like the ant that wins the struggle and enslaves many of the other ants in a colony, the Jews seek to do the same by enslaving the Goyim and using societal and legal manipulation as a yoke around their necks.

It's not as simple as just skin color.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Question4u

Do you realize everyone knows about black crime rates and jewish power yet you spend 90% of your waking hours barking about it?

No, everyone doesn't know. Additionally, many that do "know" choose to ignore the truth about Ubangis and Jews because of political correctness, which is another Jewsih invention to control others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyenglish

Why would you ask your English teacher that? And do you have any evidence for that?

I know you like to fancy yourself as bright and intelligent but are you really this dense? He didn't mean "English" teacher as in literature, he meant as in British.

There is no 'problem' and nobody is exactly sure how long ago anatomically modern humans left Africa, some saying it started 70'000 years ago. The possibility of the hybrid origin of certain populations adding to the complexity of the issure. Obviously.

Quote:

so any scientist would know we can't have significantly evolved.

'Significance' is a highly subjective issue. Only a very stupid person would actually try to argue that the evolutionary developments within the human species were 'not significant' especially when one takes into consideration the fact that the identification of certain hereditary diseases are definitely 'significant' to the individuals who may have a high risk of developing them.

Attempts at trying to write off the 'significance' of just about anything scientifically proven to exist, is quite frankly a ridiculous attempt at politicising science.

The issue is really this simple, fact: anatomical differences exist between races and individuals.

The ability to digest milk

Whether or not these changes are significant, really depents on the individuals hierarchy of value.

When I read things like 'environmental adaptations' I generally know that I am dealing with someone who really doesn't know jack **** about evolution. It is a common misconception for people afflicted with low intelligence and little to no education on the matter to actually be of the impression that environment creates evolutionary changes, as opposed to what it actually is, one mere possible filter layed upon a matrix of other possible filters that potentially hereditarily successful genes need to pass through in order to survive.

Darker or lighter skin do have some advantages depending on the environment, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that the environment is the thing that caused these traits to be successful, the primary cause of lighter skin shades could very easily just be that it was considered to be more sexually attractive, and the actual environmental advantage it brought with it just so happened to be an advantageous feature. It is also worth pointing out that there are light to lightish skinned populations who live in genuinely hot parts of the world who have managed to survive for thousands of years quite well, Semitic people for example, so when people start talking about 'environmental developments' it really does seem very mickey mousey.

Perhaps you learned this at that big, overflowing cess pit otherwise known as the British education system, but really, that isn't much of an excuse for being totally ignorant, especially not in the internet age.

Quote:

but 60,000 years is nothing in terms of evolving.

Says who? lactose tolerance for example is a fairly recent genetic development(from about 10,000 to perhaps as early as 3,000 years ago), an advantage that Europeans have in abundance compared to other human populations.(and you guys think Whites aren't 'tolerant', lol)

Is lactose tolerance 'unimportant'? or 'nothing in terms of evolving' also?

Evolution = descent with modification. The end.

Quote:

For example sharks have been around thousands of times as many years as us.

There is no 'problem' and nobody is exactly sure how long ago anatomically modern humans left Africa, some saying it started 70'000 years ago. The possibility of the hybrid origin of certain populations adding to the complexity of the issure. Obviously.

'Significance' is a highly subjective issue. Only a very stupid person would actually try to argue that the evolutionary developments within the human species were 'not significant' especially when one takes into consideration the fact that the identification of certain hereditary diseases are definitely 'significant' to the individuals who may have a high risk of developing them.

Attempts at trying to write off the 'significance' of just about anything scientifically proven to exist, is quite frankly a ridiculous attempt at politicising science.

The issue is really this simple, fact: anatomical differences exist between races and individuals.

The ability to digest milk

Whether or not these changes are significant, really depents on the individuals hierarchy of value.

When I read things like 'environmental adaptations' I generally know that I am dealing with someone who really doesn't know jack **** about evolution. It is a common misconception for people afflicted with low intelligence and little to no education on the matter to actually be of the impression that environment creates evolutionary changes, as opposed to what it actually is, one mere possible filter layed upon a matrix of other possible filters that potentially hereditarily successful genes need to pass through in order to survive.

Darker or lighter skin do have some advantages depending on the environment, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that the environment is the thing that caused these traits to be successful, the primary cause of lighter skin shades could very easily just be that it was considered to be more sexually attractive, and the actual environmental advantage it brought with it just so happened to be an advantageous feature. It is also worth pointing out that there are light to lightish skinned populations who live in genuinely hot parts of the world who have managed to survive for thousands of years quite well, Semitic people for example, so when people start talking about 'environmental developments' it really does seem very mickey mousey.

Perhaps you learned this at that big, overflowing cess pit otherwise known as the British education system, but really, that isn't much of an excuse for being totally ignorant, especially not in the internet age.

Says who? lactose tolerance for example is a fairly recent genetic development(from about 10,000 to perhaps as early as 3,000 years ago), an advantage that Europeans have in abundance compared to other human populations.(and you guys think Whites aren't 'tolerant', lol)

Is lactose tolerance 'unimportant'? or 'nothing in terms of evolving' also?

Evolution = descent with modification. The end.

There are like, 440 species of sharks.

It could be as far back as a million years ago, that's if the highly inconsistent methods of estimation used in the Out Of Africa theories are even true.
One thing we know is that Whites were the original inhabitants of the earth, there's no evidence of Black people ever leaving Africa.
I keep putting up the challenge to the Antis to show me evidence that anatomically or genetically "Black" people existed before 7,000 BC and I never get a reply.
So let's see the evidence that all people were once Black or that Blacks ever left Africa in a migration as opposed to the hold of a Jewish or Arab slave ship.
See in our old myths there's some ambiguity as to what an "ethiopian" actually was,"Ethiopian" could mean a dark skinned South Asian. Nemesis for example has as one of her attributes a goblet whose decoration is said to depict "Ethiopians", yet her point of origin was always placed in Asia Minor.
To a rational mind is a figure such as the Persian King Memnon, described as "Ethiopian" more or less likely to be a dark skinned Asian or a Black African?
The Gods of Olympus are always tripping off to India, Dionysus heads off with his Bacchantes, at one glance an army then at another a harem.
See the Antis live in a post historical bubble, they ignore everything that contradicts their position instead of trying to find meaning in the past.

How very odd that you make such a claim, implying your knowledge of "the point" yet can't state what that "point" is.

The point is clear, the question being asked in the OP is "Why do you guys whine on and on about non Whites when it's as plain as day who and what they are and even more painfully obvious that other Whites are our only credible enemy"
People on SF blame Non Whites for everything from petty crime to White Genocide and "Reverse Racism".
Why? Are Blacks and Whites equal on some levels and not on others?
Who's word are we relying on for this position?
Think of it from a racial point of view.
Why do you think Jews are so terrified of "White supremacy"?
It couldn't have anything do do with the fact that it's real to them could it?
Whites are the descendants of our Gods, we have some of their DNA, the other races don't, they're Human - Animal hybrids.
The term "Master Race" is, as usual mis-represented to tie in with our supposed taste for slavery, I see it as meaning "Blueprint Race", or "First Race".
I pose another challenge to the antis, prove that Whites are NOT the original humans of Myth and legend.

The problem is humans have only been out of Africa for 60,000 years, so any scientist would know we can't have significantly evolved. We've undergone some basic enviromental adaptations, like skin colour, but 60,000 years is nothing in terms of evolving. For example sharks have been around thousands of times as many years as us.

Highly debatable.

This is only one theory of recent human evolution, populations have lived outside Africa for 1.5 million years and there is absolutely no definitive proof that your replacement model is correct, in fact the evidence against it is enormous.

Tell me, how do explain the regional continuity between H. erectus in Asia (i.e.Zhokoudian ) and modern Asians? Did shovel shaped incissors (among other mid-facial traits) evolve in H erectus, then arise again after they had been neatly and totally replaced by the African "moderns" whose technology was no better than that of the natives?

The problem with OofA is it is only a "just so story" that does not fit the fossil evidence nor anything we know about human behaviour.

Groups leaving Africa were not conquering armies, but small bands of hunter gatherer families who would have been at significant disadvantage as compared to the locals. They would certainly have intermarried to form ties to the natives in order to survive and gain acess to local resources, or risk constant warfare with people who knew the terrain, had numerical advantage and would have annihilated the small bands of newcomers.

Please don't spread misinformation by suggestiong that OofA is a done deal, in fact support for it is on the wane amongst real anthropologists with evidence for long, continuous regional habitation since H. rectus supported by recent discoveries.

I suggest reading up on multiregional evolution. Just a freindly suggestion so you can back up your claims.

The reality is most of the people pushing the Out of Africa total replacement scenario do so for ideological reasons (i.e. so-called "antiracism") and are disengenuous in their assessment of the evidence.

I said you contradict yourself because you said you base your politics based on science. It's fine that you disagree with me, I'm not going to judge, since you aren't a typical liberal(assuming you are from your posts). But have you considered that the Liberal ideology might be hijacked? You can be secular and still preserve your nation and race. I'm not religious, nor do I follow a King. Liberalism has been hijacked by Marxists and Communists(AKA Cultural-Marxists). They want to create a classless society where everyone is the same. Hence why they encourage all cultures to mesh into a monolithic culture with no identity, and enslave them. Take a look around at all the genealogy threads about genetics, and evolution. Take a look at what we believe in.

The trouble with this idea is liberalism, in the form I follow, is older than Marxism. I am a member of the Liberal Democrat Party, our party text is "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, published 1859. Obviously there are some differences between what we stand for and that book, but it is pretty much the core of liberal thought. Now Marx had published the Communist Manifesto at this point, but he hadn't yet published his seminal work, Das Kapital. To suggest that his followers manipulated Mill is surely too absurd a proposition to take seriously?

So that's why I can't really take this idea seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deegan

Most police dogs are exposed to gun fire as a test to their being worthy of being a law enforcement tool. I 100 percent know that those dogs that fail that test are not being bred for further police dogs, but those that pass are.

In a VERY VERY short time desired traits are bred in to the population.

Anyone who denies that is an idiot, or in sever denial, or a liar.

I doubt that Jews are working furiously to include sub-par genes in to their own culture.

Again, dogs are an usual example, different from most species and from humans, because they have been selectively bred by humans.

Obviously natural selection occured amongst white people, but it was also occuring amongst blacks at the same time, and of Asians and everyone else, no one lived an easy life at this time.

The problem is humans have only been out of Africa for 60,000 years, so any scientist would know we can't have significantly evolved. We've undergone some basic enviromental adaptations, like skin colour, but 60,000 years is nothing in terms of evolving. For example sharks have been around thousands of times as many years as us.

Not true.
Apart from the fact that we are not Sharks.
Sharks have reached their optimum evolutionary level.

A recent survey on BBC TV took a group of various racial groups out on the North sea in the winter, in an open boat, for two hours.
All returned to shore with a lowered core temperature.
The White male returned to normal with 90 minutes.
His hands were warm enough to function within 30 minutes.
The Afro spent six hours huddled up under a blanket trying to regain his core temperature.

Not true.
Apart from the fact that we are not Sharks.
Sharks have reached their optimum evolutionary level.

A recent survey on BBC TV took a group of various racial groups out on the North sea in the winter, in an open boat, for two hours.
All returned to shore with a lowered core temperature.
The White male returned to normal with 90 minutes.
His hands were warm enough to function within 30 minutes.
The Afro spent six hours huddled up under a blanket trying to regain his core temperature.

That is a superficial example of how differently we have evolved.

"Optimum evolutionary level"? Hmm. This isn't really a good term to use. All evolution is is adapting to surroundings. Giraffes got longer necks to reach higher leaves, but if those leaves weren't there, the long necks wouldn't be helpful. The sharks are suited to their enviroment, and the world is constantly changing, so they need to change with it.

Saying a being has "evolved" from another is a bit misunderstood, because it implies it is "better" than the previous one, like in the classic monkey to man diagram. All it means is it has adapted to a new enviroment. An evolution could make you less intelligent and more physically strong.

Well yeah, but as you say, it's all superficial, isn't it? Obviously white peoples bodies have adapted to colder temperatures, and thus will do better in these temperatures, whereas blacks would do better in a desert generally.

I didn't deny there were superficial differences, in fact I stated that.